Legal Opinion

Murowisky v. Pyrene Manufacturing Co.

New Jersey Department of Labor Workmen's Compensation Bureau

Decided December 5, 1939PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

ífc íJí H* ❖ ❖ if:

The facts developed by the evidence are essentially as follows:

That on May 5th, 1938, and for some time prior thereto, the petitioner was employed by the respondent in an occupation which required the frequent use of solder fluxes and various acids and chemicals incidental to the soldering process. On that day the petitioner testified that while in the performance of her work she sustained an acid burn to her right eye. The testimony indicates that the petitioner was working under the most unusual circumstances; that it was not uncommon for the girls to sustain burns of…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Collins v. McKee ex rel. TrubySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Walsh v. KotlerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1956

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API